Holt recommended amendments to
3(c), the report of discussion regarding the follow-up on conditions placed on
permits to Doug Gott & Sons and to correct the ordinance reference in 7(b).Tadema-Wielandt corrected the wording of his
motion in 5(a).

CEO Jordan and Chair Holt briefly
noted that progress is occurring on three of the four permits listed (all but
the Jan 2, 2015 MacQuinn entry).Jordan received immediately prior to this
meeting information concerning the March 4, 2014 MacQuinn entry.

Holt indicated that a fifth entry
should be added to this chart concerning the four conditions placed on the
Commercial Building Permit for Doug Gott & Sons, Map 3, Lots 6 & 8 voted on by
the Planning Board on May 27, 2014.He will contact Stu to see that this is added.

Holt asked CEO Jordan if he had
reviewed the work done by Doug Gott & Sons, Map 3, Lots 6 & 8, as requested at
the April meeting.Jordan responded that he had not and stated
that, in his opinion, the Site Plan Review permit issued after May, 2014
“overrides” the conditions placed on the Commercial Building Permit.Holt contested this opinion and, in view of the
fact that the Commercial Building permit has yet to be issued because the
condition placed on it has not been met, asked that the Planning Board make a
visit to the site to investigate whether the work being done “is what was
permitted” (in reference to the buffer zone between Lots 6 and 8 and the May 27,
2014 conditions).S. Salsbury agreed to having the Board visit,
but asked if the Board would “submit points of interest to see where the
Planning Board might think [the operator] was out of compliance.” Holt agreed to
specify the issues that, in his opinion, would warrant a site visit by the
Planning Board.He will share this document with Salsbury, the
CEO, and the Board.

The applicant has submitted
further information in response to questions raised during the review of
performance standards at the April 7, 2015 meeting.This information included a new map showing a
100’ setback on the northern boundary, a new access road, and proposed areas of
restoration; a restoration/reclamation proposal; and corrections to several
items in the application.

The Board reviewed the new information and
resumed the review of performance standards, finding that all parts of the
application now met the performance standards.(See review checklist.)

Tadema-Wielandt pointed out that the “owner”
and “applicant” on the application (PCJ, LLC) did not correspond to the
addressee and presumed owner/operator in some of the documents in the
application (R.F. Jordan & Sons Construction, Inc. or variations of that).The Board decided that the application should
also list a place for “operator” to be entered in order to distinguish the three
entities: owner, applicant, and operator.

Tadema-Wielandt further noted that the
application was for a 5-acre pit but, with restoration, the actual working pit
was going to be substantially smaller.The Board agreed, however, that the pit is
currently 5 acres and over the life of the permit that 5-acre area will either
be excavated or restored; hence it constitutes the “permitted area”.In response to a further question, Salsbury
noted that the discrepancy between the coordinates listed for the eastern
boundary on the map and those listed on the deed are due to the use of magnetic
north on one and true north on the other.

Donaldson (Tadema-Wielandt) moved
to approve the permit for a three-year period.Approved by vote of 5-0.

Perry Fowler reported that he was
still waiting for portions of the application to be prepared.Tadema-Wielandt (Bamman) moved to table the
application until the June 2, 2015 meeting when a complete application will be
available.Approved by vote of 5-0 (Legere voting in
place of Fowler).

7. Other Public Matters-None

8.Ordinance Matters

a. Gravel Ordinance

Donaldson reported on the
progress of the three-person committee designated by the Select Board and the
Planning Board (Marckoon, Holt, and Donaldson).Draft 7 was distributed to the Board, but
Donaldson noted that it did not include all current revisions and that he would
provide the Board with Draft 7A, which included highlighting of all revised
sections (and thus would be a lot easier to use in future discussions).Holt and Donaldson summarized some of the major
areas of revision and pointed out the accompanying sheet, “Draft 7 Gravel
Ordinance – Unresolved Concerns”.They expect the Select Board to suggest a
meeting in the near future between the two boards to review the committee’s work
and discuss next steps.

Donaldson will email Draft 7A to
the Board.

Tadema-Wielandt offered to
propose language to the committee resolving the use of the terms “restoration”
and “reclamation” and proposing, if both terms remain in use, definitions for
each term.

Holt made reference to a
submission from Sebago Technics proposing improvements to the Lamoine State Park
boat launch facility.Copies of the packet were provided to each
Board member.The Board agreed to take up this matter at the
June meeting.

Bamman and CEO Jordan noted that the state is requiring
new language in shorelands ordinances and that the Board will have to attend to
revisions in the Lamoine Shoreland Zoning Ordinance in the near future.